[alfiopuglisi]

It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives. For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.

[fallingsquirrel]

Have we not pointed telescopes into space and seen the way light bends around a black hole? I guess in a way it's true that nobody has conclusively "seen" one (since they don't emit light), but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either.

[ruthmarx]

> but by that logic nobody has conclusively seen the hole in the middle of a donut either.

Not quite..we can see the donut hole very clearly, put things through it, measure it, interact with it. We can measure and observe and test it however we like.

Not so with a black hole. Yet.

[jawilson2]

I guess I don't understand...what is going on here? https://eventhorizontelescope.org/

[prewett]

My understanding is that the EHT images are a result of a lot (like, months) of data processing, not an image from the telescope. So arguably still not a direct observation.

[Asraelite]

Digital photographs are just the result of processing the sensor readings of photodiodes. It seems quite arbitrary to say one is an "image" and the other isn't just because the processing step is more complicated. Both accurately represent what you would see if you were there in person (ignoring false color etc.).

[ruthmarx]

Exactly this.

[davorak]

> It's not so uncommon in science to come to a strange conclusion by excluding all "reasonable" alternatives.

That is not what happen in the article, or to my understanding in this field of research.

> For example, black holes have a similar status: no one has conclusively seen one, but we know of no mechanism for matter to support itself beyond a certain density, so black hole it is.

Comparing the equation based methods of physics, often called a "hard" science, to neurology or biology, often called a a "soft" science, is not going to be an apples to apples comparison.

[ruthmarx]

> neurology or biology, often called a a "soft" science,

Neurology and biology are absolutely hard sciences, just as hard as physics.

[dekhn]

No, absolutely not.

(my phd is in biophysics; I've worked across many different fields)

[ruthmarx]

Yes, they absolutely are. Congrats on your PhD.

Hard sciences are simply those that can be tested and verified. Biology and neurology fall into this category.

Soft sciences are those that don't lend themselves to testing and verification very well, like economics and psychology.

This is pretty cut and dry. It's not like trying to argue if Star Wars is sci-fi or not or something.

[dekhn]

There is a continuum of hardness within the quantitative sciences, and physics definitely lies on the "more testable and verifiable" than chemistry, biology, and neuroscience (not neurology- that's a form of medicine). Many of the biological systems we work with, we don't even really test and verify, especially not at the level that a large-scale particle physics experiment would.

If you want to insist that biology is as testable and verifiable as physics, I have no interest in arguing with you- it's just a difference of opinion (and I think people with experience across the continuum would agree with me).

[ruthmarx]

> If you want to insist that biology is as testable and verifiable as physics, I have no interest in arguing with you- it's just a difference of opinion

I just think the whole "There is a continuum of hardness within the quantitative sciences" is irrelevant. It's more of a binary thing, and biology is a hard science, period. But sure, we can agree to disagree.

Without any doubt though, biology is not a 'soft' science.

[77pt77]

> Neurology and biology are absolutely hard sciences

Sometimes.

> just as hard as physics.

No. Not even close.

[anthk]

Neurology maybe, specially with the book "The Rhythms of The Brain". Still far from pure Physics.

Biology it's more about classification/sorting than Math.

[ruthmarx]

> Sometimes.

No, always. No exceptions.

> No. Not even close.

It's exactly equal because it's a category not a scale and certainly not a competition.

Hard sciences are those that can be tested and verified. Biology, neurology and physicals all meet that criteria, and thus are all hard.

Soft sciences are those that are harder to test, like economics and psychology.

[drowsspa]

This sounds like the whole "we've never seen a species evolving". Much like fossils, radioactive dating, geology come together to give us a picture of evolution, we have tons of real evidence for black holes. But we even have two actual pictures now.

[dekhn]

yes, but in this case, nobody has excluded all the more probable alternatives.